State of X - Google Tech Talk

[JoJo jojo]

will surely check those video links, much thanks.

I think of Google as a platform, for technology.
The user/dev community needs to make efficient use of that platform,
people like Bart can give the intro kinda talks, but to make most optimal
use of developers time (speaking & preparing), match the content to
their capability,
in order to get the best amount of information out. Internet is a much
larger audience.
(more importantly, it remembers & has a memory)

besides if your audience is a bunch of construction workers, what do you do ?
(ahem, send someone else), speaking to the lowest common denominator
is reserved for politicians alone.

X awareness issue, users should not be aware of X, they interact with
Gnome/KDE etc.
A subset of all developers need to be aware of X.

"X is something we used in the 80ies",
This is ideally how it should be,
"users" shouldn't be aware of it, developers of interact with X
periphery should be aware of it (not all developers)
( on that note, users are painfully aware of X, every time desktop
stops working, at least those who have tried UNIX/Linux gui's )

"X is not only up-to-date"
As compared to what, XF86?, there really is nothing to compare X with,
coz' X has moved so many things into & out of it over the years.

"X still has an image problem" (er.. they'll fix it, file a bug report ;-)

on the X wiki
the wheels of X bureaucracy are still turning, no decision on Media Wiki target.
(meanwhile, the front page fails W3C validation, with 9 errors.)

and of course I accept your point of view. yeah, the talk content was
suitable to the audience.

-JoJo

On Feb 13, 2008 7:59 AM, Peter Hutterer <mailinglists at who-t.net> wrote:
> Jojo,
>
> (replying to both of your emails)
>
> JoJo jojo wrote:
> > Keith Packard was impressive, at the same time, it was quite light on X,
> > perhaps they should forget that they are presenting to the audience sitting
> > in front of them,
> > and think about us, who watch it on the internet. Wish the next time he
> > decides to speak,
> > he goes in all the gory details of X innards.
>
> Please think about what you are asking for here. I presume Keith and
> Bart were invited by Google to give this talk. You suggest that they
> should then ignore the audience of their host and concentrate about a
> _possible_ audience that may watch the video on the web later.
>
> As a speaker, ignoring the audience is not only rude, it is also
> difficult. The audience will give you immediate feedback about your talk
> (people dozing off is usually a hint). Ignoring the audience when being
> _invited_ is rude and may hinder future public appearances.
>
> > So the next time someone asks him to give an introductory talk, he can just
> > provide them the youtube *.flv link.
> > Which means that any talk he gives after that one HAS to be more technical
> > than that, Good News !!!
>
> I think we need more talks like this one. X still has an image problem,
> created by years of stifling progress. Judging from some reviews I got,
> the "X is something we used in the 80ies" is still ingrained in many
> minds. Also, I heard many comments in the line of "X is a horrible pile
> of old code, I don't want to touch this". (*)
>
> A talk like that shows that X is not only up-to-date but interesting
> stuff is happening may change the public perception of X. It may not be
> the optimal talk for X hackers but to please everyone is difficult. The
> audience was most likely not familiar with X internals. As Keith pointed
> out in another email, "gory" X talks have been given at e.g. LCA and
> were covered by LWN. See http://linux.conf.au/programme/ for videos of
> these talks.
>
> Our biggest problem at the moment is that the core X developers are
> constantly overworked and there is little code review. A number of
> patches have been sent to the ML lately and progress is being made but
> it will take a while to get up to speed.
>
> ATM, anything that may attract developers who are willing to post
> patches and _review, test and sign-off_ patches is a Good Thing.
>
> > The audience was completely irrelevant, they were complaining about device
> > drivers not working etc.
> > (and as soon as Q&A began, front seats were empty)
>
> No. The live audience is _never_ irrelevant. If you give a talk to 20
> people and two complain about drivers, it does not mean that the other
> 18 have the same view. In each group you have outspoken people and quiet
> ones. Judging the quiet ones is hard, but equally important.
> Unfortunately, people have a tendency to assume that the vocal minority
> represents the general public. Which - quite frankly - is the reason why
> I wrote this email.
>
> > Also why let off site googlers join in, just let them catch it on youtube,
>
> Please consider again that Google was their host. If the host decides to
> let other remote sites to virtually attend the talk, this is the host's
> decision.
>
> > Also the CAM job/cinematography reminded us all of tpb Cloverfield ;-) OK
> > maybe not so much.
>
> It is actually rather difficult to film a talk if you do not have the
> required training and/or training. Especially with one camera you
> constantly have to decide whether to focus on the speakers (important
> for gestures and facial expressions) or get a shot of the slides as well.
>
> Finally, the X.org website is a wiki. If you want to contribute to the
> progress of X, create an account and add documentation. There is quite
> some information in these talks that can be summarised and put as
> documentation online. So, even if you are not happy with the talk, you
> can make the talk and the information therein more accessible to others
> that may get more out of it.
>
> Cheers,
>     Peter
>
> (*) well, it _is_ a horrible pile of old code, but that's no excuse :)
>
>